Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  WHUT  July 27, 2011 3:00am-4:00am EDT

3:00 am
>> welcome to our program. we continue this evening with a look at the debt limit jakes extension talks in washington. here are some of the voices heard in the debate today. >> as the president made clear last night, we're in a stalemate. the speaker's pposal cannot pass the senate. will not pass the senate, will not reach the president's desk. i mean, this is the problem we have, is that we need congress to produce something that is compromise, and that therefore can get support from democrats and publicans in both houses, and reach the president's desk and meet the president's approval. that's why we need compromise. i think the plan put forward by thmajority leader in the senate, senar reid, is a much better option.
3:01 am
it represents compromise. others pointed out that it doesn't include revenues in it explicitly, except for tasking a committee to deal with the hard issues of health entitlement reform and tax reform. it has substantial, considerable, deep spending cuts. >> speaker boehner's plan is not a compromise. it was written for the tea party, not the american people. democrats will not vote for it. democrats will not vote for it. democrats will not vote for it. it's dead on arrival in e senate. ifhey get it out of the house. the tea party's in the driver's seat for the house republicans now. and that's a very, very scary thought. >> i think on the issue of the debt ceiling, the clock is ticking, you know, with a much closer range and a much shorter period of time within which to adjust. clearly the critical objective is not to be able to -- for the
3:02 am
united states to increase the debt ceiling with a view to avoiding a defect -- a dault, which would be terrible for the unitedtates, which would be terrible for the economy at large. >> rose: with an assessmt ofthe. >> it's going to be august 2nd or 3rd, they'll have to do something. if they don't, there's going to be a crisis. the general perceived wisdom is as of today somehow they will avoid that, but what they will do will be very much on the cosmetic as opposed to dealing with the long-term structural problems. >> given erything we've seen over the last number of elections, we are unlikely to see either party have enough strength coming out of 2012 to be able to do what they say we want to do -- they say they want
3:03 am
to do. part of the problem we're running into at this moment is that the republicans have overinterpreted the mandate from 2010. so we will have a big debate in 2012. there's no question about that. and an important debate. but i'm not sure that the voters will resolve it finally so that whoever is in power in 2013 can be able to go in the direction that they say they wt to. >> if you don't get the debt problem resolved, he knows it's going to nip at his heels at ever turn, no longer how long he's president of the united states. that's the underlying problem. even if you get to that point, there's a disagreement, i think, ideologically about what the government's role ought to be in that kind of economic policy. >>e continue this evening the documentary filmmaker and photographer with interesting ideas, not only about filmmaking, but also interviewing. >> i don't think that i discover that isn't there already. i would, again, describe it differently.
3:04 am
i would say it's a desire, not to impose some idea of what a person is like on the movie that i'm making, but a process of discovery, of trying to uncover, in some way, something new, something interesting, something vital, something important about the person i'm talking to. >> the debate in washington and the skills of earl morris when we continue. l acacrossmeririca.happeng evev, evertimeme a ststis b burneor t mididnighol
3:05 am
hen aethl@e chasd@t@ @dl@@ for r a re herero, iyou u wannrt pporort l bubusine. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: the deadline forraisint tuesday, august 2nd. what are the implications of this? what's happeningin washington? what are the larger issues? joinini'm pleased to have my gus here. just where rey and then i want
3:06 am
to turn to bigger issues? al, where are we as we speak? >> nobody knows where we are, why we're here, where we're going. that's only a slig exaggeration. both sides think they have a winning hand. republicans, because obama has to eventuallyko pitch late. mocrats because they think public opinion is on theirside. both are vy, very nervous it's not clear that john boehner can get a majority in the house for his proposal. i expect he will, but it won't be close. it's not known how many votes harry reid will get for his dueling proposal. i don't think six days or seven days before we face a potential cataclysm we know wheree are. >> dan? >> i agree.
3:07 am
we're in a period where events have to play out a little bit and people will reassess by the hour or by the day. the first big question is what happens with the boehner plan. i think until you see what that vote actually looks like we don't know where it's going to go after that. somebo said to me today, you know, never get more than one step ahead of the congress in trying to figure things out, because people react to whatever's happed at the mont. because there's no clear compromise in the offing, i think there has to be a series of tests of strengthefore everybody in the leadership can reassess and decide what the grnds for a compromise might be. >> rose: ayou said today, notye. >> , yes i think that's right. and so boehner has to test his. i think reid is certainly going to wait and see what happens with the boehner plan in the house. if the boehner plan fails in the house, then i think thatou've got a real problem on your hands, because i think there's a greater difficulty in using the reid from starting point to get to a finish line, but i don't know that for sure. i don't think anybody on the
3:08 am
hill does. >> rose: do people you talk toa- failure is not an alternative, is not an option? is there -- >> well, they all say this, but that presumes that they have a solution to try to avoid the default. i mean, i think if we get to a -- you know, literally a crisis point, you could see it -- one week or two-week or three-week extension so they could try to work something out. but i think everybody is committed to the idea that they don't want to default, but they -- you know, here we are, six days away from it, and they don't have a clear path to get. >> >> rose: what are the --charliee small anecdote about how crazy quilt this whole thing is now. bill detail, the svy white house chief of staff, good ties to the business community, earlier today talked to tom donahue, theead of the chamber of commerce, largest business lobbying group in america.
3:09 am
donahue said we'll send a letter up to the hill to say, please increase the debt ceiling. what daley didn't know, found out later, actually when i interviewed him, was that dohue dorsed the boeer plan. he was not terribly pleased where that, but that shows you how crazquilt this all is right now. i think most people believe that we will avoid a default. as dan said, however, they can't tell you how they're going to get there. sooner or later it's going to be august 2nd or august 3rd, and sooner or later th'll have to do something. if the don't, there be a crisis. the general perceived wisdom today somehow they'll avoid that, but what they will do is very much on the cosmetic as opposed to dealing with the long-term structural problem. >> i think that's an important point. i think where we are now is simply trying to avoid a terrible outcome as opposed having an opportunity to do something significant, which looked like it might have been
3:10 am
in the offing a few weeks ago. i think that's a significant turn in the way the whole debate has played out. >> rose: the game today issimplg else? >> yes. i mean, if you think about it, here we have an economy with a 9.2% unemployment rate. what we're talking about here now this week is how do you not do some further and perhaps terrible damage to that economy as aopposed to how we do something good for the economy? i mean, when you step back from this, that's the opportunity that's been lost. >> and charlie, we talk=áq about default as almost, well, no one will do that, that's a terrible word, all that. it's beginning to dawn on people, what that means is, if we go there, we decide the chinese bondholders are more important than social security recipients supposed to get checks on august 3rd? i wouldn't want to be a politician making that cice. are the bondholders more important than the sergeant in afghanistan? that's a tough decision to make.
3:11 am
those are the kinds of choices that have to be made, the kind of contingency plans that the treasury is mapping out today. it really terribly dangerous. >> let me ask you, before i turn to bigger issues, what are the political consequences for the president, for the speaker of the house, and for those republicans who are taking a hard-line in the house of representatives? >> well, i mean, i think the president believes that because public opinion is more on his side than on the republican de, particularly on the shape of a big plan or who has been less willing to compromise, that they feel that almost any outcome is likely to be beneficial to the president politically. i think that when he went on the tv on monday night, his speech was aimed at the independence that the white house is -- independents that the white house is so focused on to convince them he's the reasonable player in this. i'm not sure that that's necessarily the case when we come out of this that he'll
3:12 am
benefit politically. i think everybody could lose some on this. the speaker obvious hasis speakership the line. mean he's having a terrible time holding s own caucus together. his inability to do that underscores the weakness that he is as the leader. he's trying to, you know, on the one hand get a deal, but, on the other hand, not have to get a deal in which he mostly does it with democrats as opposed to republicans. i think for house republicans in general, the danger for thems that the country decides, okay we voted these folks into the house last november, but they are not prepared to govern. they are there to make political statements, but they are not there prepared to compromise. now, a part of the republican base is very strongly in favor of what the band of freshman are doing in holding out. make no mistake about that. but that's not the country at large. i think that theepublican party as a whole is at risk if they continudown a path in which it looks like they're only
3:13 am
holding out for only the things they want. >> charlie, let me pick up, because i agree with dan totally. you and i discussed some weeks ago how a grand bargaincould be a win-win for both sides a win for obama in that he would have a significant achievement, would deal with some of the long-term strturalissues. a win for the republicans because they really will have produced a huge deficit reduction and removed the most lethal issue for them, younow, medicare from the table. i think there was a credible case for that. i think if you turn it around, this could be a lose-lose. it's a lose for obama i they don't get a deal and you have a default, or you have a downgrading of our credit ratings. that affects the economy, which goes south. that's not the kind of environment he wants to run into next year. he already has enough problems. it's a lose for republicans in the sense that they do appear like the unyielding, almost extremist on some of these issues. i think most of the public identifies with this idea, there
3:14 am
ought to be a balanced package, a shared sacrifice, however you do it, but get it done. this is one of those cases where it could be a lose-lose. >> rose: just to the boehnerpla. eric ctor supports it, michele bachmann doesn't. how solid is this plan in terms of tea party adherence? they have problems with the tea party republicans in the house on it. the heritage foundation put out a statement today they're against both the reid plan and the boehner plan. club for growth is against this boehner plan. so the hard-core conservatives in the republican party, the tea party wing, doesn't particularly like this. the question is, can reid and can cantor and kevin mccarthy corral them to hold the line long enough to get this out of the house and get it into the senate? i don't think -- we're not looking at a situation in which the ehner pla is likely to be the ultimate outcome, but i think that a key to thi is
3:15 am
going to be how mitch mcconnell begins to massage whatever ends up in the senate. we've not heard a lot from him. he's bn generally supportive of the speaker, but we know that mitch mcconnell is a crafty legislator, around he will try to figure out if there's some vehicle, how to make it palatable to pass both the senate and hold in the house. but boehner does have problems with his base, charlie, no question about it. >> yeah. charlie, the other problem he has, last night -- or monday night, you know, john boehner on several different occasions referred to the bipartisan support. now, that biparsan support was five or six democrats, i think. but that gives him a cover, to talk about that. i'm not sure he's going to get even those most conservative democrats. heath shiller from north carolina came out against the boehner plan. that shows you that's where the popular will is. if he can end up getting all but a handful of republicans and four or five democrats his hand
3:16 am
would be considerably strengthened in that negotiation. if, on the other hand, he squeaks through with 217 or 218 votes and only gets one or two democrats, if any, boy, even that puts him in a somewhat weakened position. >> re: whatever happens, isthisl say that the united states congress began to take a serious look, you know, at the nature of both taxes and spending, especially spending, and we wi say this was a turn that took place because of the debate we're having now? >> we haven't seen that yet. i think there's more -- more about posturing, positioning right now. i think there waa ance for the congress and the white house to do it after the simpson-bowles report came out in december. i think both punted. obama justifiably gets criticized for not rising to the occasion, but neither did paul ryan or house republicans. i think there was another opportunity a couple weeks ago with these deliberations between boehner and obama. they've fallen through. i'm not sure why there's grounds
3:17 am
for optimism. looking ahead, charlie, there may indeed -- some of the ratings agencies have said, even with the debt ceiling increase, there may be a downgrading of u.s. credit, because we're not optimistic about that long-term outlook. >> i mean, the only thing that would gi anybody any sense of optimism, if they pass something that does have some kind of a coission in it of members of congress with some very hard triggers or targets, that sort of thg, then perhaps that would do it. but i think given everything we've seen over the last weeks and months, you would have to say that is an unlikely outcome that we will look back on this and say this is the moment when they got serious. i mean, i think a lot of people think that, well, let's just ve iout in the 2012 election. >> rose: right.maybe the publice it. >> rose: but the issues havebegf what the -- drawn in terms of what the 2012 election will be about. and will be in fact about
3:18 am
entitlements and the deficit, and whatever action took place in this congress to make points and face down the reality of the debt ceiling. >> i agree with that, charlie. the real problem is that we are unlikely -- i mean, given everything we've seen over the last number of elections -- we are unlikely to see either party have enough strength coming out of 2012 to be ableo do what they say they want do. part of the problem we're running into this -- at this moment is that the republicans have overinterpred the mandate from 2010. so we will have a big debate in 2012, there's no question about that. and an important debate. i'm not sure that the voters will resolve it finally so that whoever is in power in 2013 can be able to go in the direction that they say they want to. >> and one issue that -- one issu charlie, that has to be
3:19 am
joined next year are the tax cuts. the bush tax cuts expire in december of 2012. either they'll have to have some nd of a resolution in congress or more likely they'll fight thatut in september or octob of 2012 and the campaign trail. >> rose: jerry joins us now fro. he wrote today -- jerry, welcome. sorry for the delay, whatever the technical delay was. >> thank you. >> rose: you wrote today, theinf warning to deal with any plan to deal with deficits a raise the naon's debt ceiling isn't a freak accident instead it's the culmination of an unresolved debate over the size of government and the growing hyper-partisanship of congress, particularly the house of representatives. as we look a this a bit bit from distance, thiis all about the role of government and partisanship in the house. >> not only the house, but particularly the house. al and dan were jt referring
3:20 am
to it. there's a dete that will have to happen in 2012. some people thought it was resolved to some extent in 2008. it realldoes go to this question, how big is the government, what's the role of e gornme in a 21st century in the united states of america, and how do you resolve that questi? in aay that's the backdrop of this eire debate. yes, it's about the precise level of spending cuts, about the tax level, whether there should be increased revenues from some place or another, but it's really this bigger question, how big should the government be? 19% or 20% of th, or 22% or 23%? >> rose: al?any single group ths looked at this, bowles-simpson, the gang of six, the national science foundation, every single one has concluded that to deal
3:21 am
with the structural long-term problems you have to deal with entitlements and taxes. you can't do it without that. and i think obama was late to the game. you can justifiably criticize him for not getting in much earlier, not doing it in his budget, but he came to the game. basically what the republican rank and file said to their leaders was, we don't want to play in this game. i think in that sense, there's an imbalance. i tnk you could have gotten that grand bargain through enough democrats to pass the house and sete. it was the republicans that were the obstacle. >> rose: dan?look, i agree withy and al on this. the role of government has been at the heart of the debate since barack obama was elected. you can that it's been at heart of our debate since ronald reag was elected in 1980. i think one of the questions coming out of the 2008 election was the degree to which people
3:22 am
said we are -- we are done with the reagan era. we want a different kind of government now. that is a very difficult thing to interpret. barack obama had a painful series of decisions to make, particularly because of the state of the economy. he chose to go big in a lot of different ways. and perhaps that was necessary as he has said, but it also set off a big backlash. we've been living with the consequences of that ever since. in part he did what he did without any republican support, because they made a calculate political decision tt opposition to obama was in fact the best course for them politically. so as jerry wrote today, the role of government is at the heart of the debate in this country about who we are as a people. but the hyper-partisanship has left us in a position where we can't easily deal with that, even if people of gowill want to do that. >> rose: the 28 election was ara
3:23 am
and size of government? >> 2010 was. >> rose: 2010.yes, up to a poi,i think where the republicans may be overinterpreting is 2010 was also a referendum on the unhappiness of the american people about the state of the economy, and that is not entirely different from the role of government and the size of government, but it's not the same thing. it doesn't necessarily lead to the same kinds of policy sotions./vrq iuz certainly there was somepust what barack obama had done, but was it because the economy hadn't turned around or because he had spent a lot of money and created a big deficit? i think there's a clear disagreement between democrats and republicans on what 2010 meant, and that's what we're seeing right now. >> rose: and it's compounded bye over the fact you have to create growth in order to live in a world that we're facing with multiparties and competition, you have to have an investment
3:24 am
in things like science and ings like education and things like research, and yet in the environment that we live in those things are being challenged. >> right. you know, i'm not sure that there are a lot of republicans who necessarily agree with that, you know. th is in fact the obama hope here, that you c clear away the debt problem here, straighten out the lines, and then i can spend some time in the rest of my first term, hopefully dealing with those kinds of." what is an reasonable alternative energy policy and how do you make investments in technology and education that allow you compete with the chinese? but if you don't get the debt problem resolved, he knows it's going to ni at his heels at every turn, no matter how long he's p. united states. that's the underlying problem. even if you get to that point, there's a disagreement, i think, ideologically, about what the government's role ought to be in that kind of economic policy. >> rose: jerry, thank you.dan t. albert, thank you. >> tnk you, charles.
3:25 am
>> rose: earl morris is here isy filmmakers. here's a look at some of that work. >> skippy's been dead two or three years, you know. yeah, i don't want to think about it. everybody liked that dog around here. you know, you miss your pets just like you do any of the family. >> psecutors in dallas have said for years that any prosecutor can convict a guty man. it takes a grea prosecutor to convict an innocent man. tohis day, i think mr. mulder believes that the randall day adams conviction was one of his great victories, probably
3:26 am
because of some re vacations he haabout randall dale adams' guilt. >> we wrote a paper on using very small robots to explore surfaces. the title we came up was "fast, cheap and out of control: a robot invasion of the solar system." >> there's a wonderful phrase, the fog of war. what the fog of war means is is war is so complex, it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate, and we kill people unnecessarily. >> the pictures spoke 1,000 words. if you knew what day and time
3:27 am
they were talking, you'd know wh the story was. started aine of pictures based on subject matter, put them on a timeline so that the jury could see when did the incident begin,when did it end, how much time elapsed in between these photographs. roy his new film is "tabloid." it's a fascinating story. he's the trailer. >> once upon time ere was a princess, the most beautiful princess in all the land. >> kinky sex, religion, the beauty queen, mormon missionaries, kidnapped at gunpoint. there was something in that story for everyone. it was a perfect tabloid story. >> it was likin the1 movies, when juliet looks at romeo. >> she had fallen inove te with him, became obsessed with him. >> he vanished in thin air. i found him in england. the mormons had him. >> i knew there was only one way
3:28 am
to get kirk out of mormonism. that was to make love to him. we wentit to a a cottage and mae love for three days. it was like a honeymoon. >> this bizarre story began last wednesday. a youngmo missi msionary was kidnapped, driven to a house, blindfolded, and his legs shackled. >> i couldn't believe it. it was, like, shock. >> it was in all the papers. >> were you surprised? >> i didn't feel i'd done anything wrong. >> chlororm, tied up, sexua improprieties. second version is joyce's story. e mormonsget him, brainwash him. all a sudden he's claimin rape. >> a guy wants to have sex or doesn't. it's like putting a marshmallow in a parking meter. >> she was having the time of her life. >> i was a celebrity. >> disguises and wings.
3:29 am
>> worms crawl out of the woodwork when you're famous. >> yonrou fantasy is her specialty. >> the press went crazy. >> they said i was a whore. >> oh, my heck. >> as they say in utah. >> she went barkg mad and disappeared a day later. >> it's not a porno story like these crazy newspapers have tried to make. it's a love story. >> you know, you can tell a lie long enough till you believe it. >> rose: i'm pleased to haveear. welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> rose: you said that this filu love, your favorite genre, sad, sick, and funny. >> yep. those three ingredients. i have always loved tabloid
3:30 am
stories. i mean, we're at a time now where tabloid journalism iscomi. >> ros because of london andall? >> because of london and all that. yes, absolutely. but of course there's something about tabloid stories that fascinate all of us. >> ros what is it?i'm not sure t my finger on it. the fact that we all love the tawdry, the sleazy, the sensationalistic. i'm not sure. >> rose: and also, i mean welove celebrated, who seem to have so much more of fame and power and money in trouble,. >> that also obviously is an appeal over the years. are you suggesting that the
3:31 am
story of murdoch's possible downfall is yet another tabloid story, a tabloid story about a tabloid story? >> rose: tt's moreshakespearean. >> perhaps. >> rose: so tell me about joyce. w did you know about her? >> i read a lot of newspapers. this was an a.p. service wire story about a woman who had cloned her -- >> rose: dog.-- pit bull named , produced five -- five clones. her name is bernand mckinney, but at the bottom of the article they mentioned she might have been involved -- she might be joyce mckinney, she might involved in a 30-year-old sex and chain story.
3:32 am
>> rose: sex and chain?sex and . >> rose: chained to a bed?yes. and it caught my attention. i ended up making a movie about it. >> rose: were you looking for ay jumped up at you? >> i'm always looking for stories. i mean, that's nothing unusual. this story jumped out at me. i had been thinking of doing a tabloid story. that had been on my mind. one of the characters in my movie "tabloid" describes that is t perfect tablo story. i believe they'r absolutely correct. >> rose: when makes the perfect? >> in this particular case the idea of a woman raping a man, the idea that she pursued her ex-lover tusands of miles and possibly kidnapped him, the fact
3:33 am
that the tabloid papers in the uk went czy. there was a tabloid war over this story, which is fascinating in and of itself. >> rose: all because she'd comed him to a bed and had three days of frolic and sex? >> yes. >> rose: that's enough, isn'tit? >> i guess it is. >> by this time, the british isles was on fire with the joyce mckinney story. that was all that was being talked about in the pubs and taverns and restaurants, where were you when you read the joyce mckinney story? i mean it had kinky sex, a beauty queen, chains, being spread eagled, mormo mission, yeamissionaries, something for eryone. >> i can never understand the
3:34 am
public's fascination with my ve life. i'm not a movie star. i'm just a human being caught in an extraordinary circumstance. >> rose: tell me about herstory. the actually from north carolina? yes. >> rose: miss wyoming?yes. >> rose: met a mormon, a youngm. >> in uh, yes. >> rose: liked him, loved him.h. she goes to los angeles. >> e follows him. >> rose: this is love at itszen. >> it is this amazing story. some people have said, well, this is a very slight story, and my reply is there's nothing slight about it at all. hopeless love is a story that's been with us for literally thousands of years.
3:35 am
what i like is that you take a story seemingly that would be simple and find surpring complexity in it. >> rose: what's the complexity?e don't really know ultimately what this story is about. the characters in it, the facts are curiously elusive, having spent a fair amount of time making this movie, if you asked me do i know exactly what happened, do i know who joyce mckinney is, i would have to say no. i find her fascinating, but i find her hard to pin down. >> rose: you said she's the bes. >> she was extraordinary.
3:36 am
extraordinary because of -- i don't know how else to describe it. people don't like it when you say that there's an element of performance in an interview, but in this particular case there was this extraordinary performance, a story that she had been clearly rehearsing all of her life, and suddenly it came out on-camera. her use of lanage. yeah, i liked her and i liked her story. >> rose: when you met her, what? why me? >> no, no, not why me. i can describe joyce in many, many different ways, but i can't describe her as a complete
3:37 am
victim of the press. she's a willing participant. she certainly was a willing participant for me. not why me. >> rose: how aut, wt tooku so l? >> iould say that is much, much closer to the truth. >> rose: a born storyteller?yes. i would say so. >> rose: and what are you?a bor? a what? >> i see myself as a born investigators. you know, i've had various jobs over the years. i've worked as a private detective for a number of years. and i've been a -- >> rose: you look the role.well. >> rose: i could see you as anl. >> no. i was in new york. >>ose: no, i know, but i coulds. >> yes.
3:38 am
i'd en a director/detective in a movie. the movie i'm most proud of is "the thin blue line" where i actually overturn a miscarriage of justice in texas andot the killer to confess. >> ros that's the proudestmomen? >> yes. you don't do that every day. >> rose: yes, but at the sametit mcthat mayomcnamara. >> yes. it's interesting to do all different kinds of movies. this lacks the gravitas of "fog of war." it does not have robert mcnamara talking about the
3:39 am
cuban missile crisis and the possible end of the world, but still has a lot of themes that are important to me and that have interested me over the years. >> rose: let me turn tomcnamara. you continued to see him after the film was out until his death. >> yes. >> rose: what did he tell you?wy different things, things that were not really resolved in my filmed interviews. >> rose: yeah.there was a lot od questions obviously. >> yes. one of the things that -- >> rose: that you didn't quiteae perhaps was, to have a confession that would be full bore. >> my objective never was to get a confession. i'll have to confess to that. you've got my confession here, my lack of interest in a confession. i felt i had aompletely different task.
3:40 am
>> rose: understanding?understae complexity of a very complicated and interesting man, a man who i was aware of through the news for decades, but a man who i wanted the opportunity to try to understand better. >> rose: so after all thosehourt into the film, all those hours after the film, which have become part of your own archive, what do you understand about him? >> there is this great mystery -- perhaps it's the greatest mystery of all -- the mystery of who we, of ourselves, of what motivates us. >> rose: or the mystery of why.. go man, bad man.
3:41 am
i came to really like robert mcnamara. and do a prove of all the things that he did? no. >> rose: he didn't approve ofal. >> no, he did not. he was very much an anguished man, a man tortured. i think that is the correct way to describe the man, tortured by his own history. actuly it would probably take a book to write down all of this -- this kind of stuff. i'm struck, each movie that i make, the movie that ends up on the screen, but often the real story is the back story, the story of the making of the movie. "the thin blue line," the story
3:42 am
of investigating a murder in texas. withobert mcnamara, the story of my relationship with him. >> rose: should you have madeth? >> i think you do what you can do at the time. at that time i wasn't writing books. now i am. i have a book coming out on september 1st, my first book. >> rose: on photography?on phot. yeah, i would like to write more about all of these stories. you make movies, but sometimes -- it's different than in a feare film. you have a script. you make your movie. it gets distributed to the public. it gets reviewed. thesthese are about relationships about people.
3:43 am
>> rose: you mean betweenfilmma? >> one way to describe it, but another way to describe it it's between one person and another. yes, you're making a film, but it's a human relationship, a connection with another person. >> rose: are we approaching the? >> i don't know what that would mean. >> rose: in part, that more and. hbo has a documentary series now. >> yes. >> rose: ranging in subject,wher whatever it might be. gloria steinham. >> in that sense, yes. if i contributed to it, i'm delighted.
3:44 am
>> what skill do you have that you thin serves you best? >> the ability to listen to others. i think that's my best skill. >> rose: a friend of thisprograd writer and television and film critic, he credits you with havi a knack f finding that zone in each person's character, where luciity intersects with dilution. >> i would describe it differently. it's a desire not to impose what a person is like on the movie i'm making, but a process of
3:45 am
discovery, of trying to uncover in some way, something new, something interesting, something vital, something important about the person i'm talking to. >> rose: what you just saidsthe >>you're in the same trade, by the way. >> rose: i know, i're . because the difference in -- people always talk about hard and soft. the difference in interviews is the difference between whether it is -- you're just looking for somebody to say something to fit your thesis. >> yes. >> rose: your point of view.yes. >> rose: which is some kind ofau are genuinely intrigue an exploratioin which you do not know where that road will lead you, but you are interesd in finding out. it is a journey of discovery rather than a journey of confirmation. >> let me give you an example. i don't very much like having a list of questions that i'll ask.
3:46 am
>> rose: right.i like preparing. >> rose: a conversation isalwayf questions. >> mcnamara said to me he was surprised that i had read all of his books and actually had thought about them, but no list of questions. i had to go to the white house -- i made film that ran at the beginning of the academy awards. i had to go to the white house to interview lra bush. and i waul[hy told by her advane people, you have to submit a list of questions that you're going to ask the rst lady. i said, well, no, no, no, i can't do this. that's not what i do. i don't have list of questions, i don't believe in a list of questions, etc., etc. back and forth. i never submitted a list. get down to the white house with my crew, and some guy walks
3:47 am
up to me with a list of the questions that i'm going to ask the first lady, and also ted out a list of her responses. >> rose: this came from where?o. >> rose: one of her people,righ. >> one of her people. the first lady comes in, and i ask her, is your favorite movie really the "wizard of oz"? >> she says of course not. my favorite movie is "giant." i stood in line absence a young girl in midland, texas, trying to become an extra in that movie. so there you go. >> rose: absolutely.that proves. number one, it pves that handlers often demand things that the subject would never wish. they do it because it makes them seem indispensable. that's why they do it.
3:48 am
>> yes. it's their job. >> rose: it's their job.that's r existence. it my job to ask what you're going to ask, you know, it's my job to tell them. so therefore the person will think, you know,hat's number one. number two, is thateople -- whether it's the first lady of the united states or nobel scientist, want to talk about themselves. no matter how much they say they don't, they do. >> yes. >> rose: you just have to get il unthreatened by the idea. >> or that they feel they are talking to somebody who really wants to know. >> rose: to got it. here's a question for you. >> rose: all's a quee rose. >> rose: yes?offdone a fair numf interviews in your day. i don't even know, i can't put a
3:49 am
number on it, but it's a large number. >> rose: probably 50,000,60,000. >> yeah. >> re: we've de 10,000 or15,000d before i came here. >> pretty amazing. don't have a hat, but i tip my hat to you. >> rose: thank you.what is the r some of the most amazing things you've heard that were unexpected in an interview? that took you by surprise. >> rose: it's always for me howt of finding people -- the passion of people, number one, what is their passion? number two, what is their fear? and number three, ho do they see themselves?
3:50 am
those three things. it's not about a particular person, but it's about a composite of people. no one i've ever interviewed has said to me, replied to me, or suggested to me, that they have accomplished whatever it is that brought them to this table because they were smarter than the rest of the world. it was always a belief that i'm here because of some variety of circumstances having to do with hard work, endurance, preparation, luck. >> certainly luck. >> rose: yeah.that last cagory u mentioned is very, very important to me. how do people see themselves? how do we capture in an inrview, whether it's video or film, it doe't matter, how do capture how people see
3:51 am
themselves what motivates them? how can we speak inside of them and see something that is unexpected? ich ximum this whole enterprise to me unendingly inresting. >> rose: me too.i can tell you e talked to a lot of people -- >> we're two interviewers! good lord. >> rose: i know.and filmmakers. i've talked to a lot of people about the subject of interrogation, interrogation, where someone has something that you want to discover and you want to know how to get it. that brings up the question of torture. that brings up the question of hot and cold and -- >> by the way, you don't have to torture me. i'll tell you everything you want t to know. >> rose: what is the thing youm? >> i can'ttalk about that. >> rose: people that are wiseabe
3:52 am
intelligence service, around the world, israelis know this, and people in a variety of different places have talked to me about, this because i've asked them all. >> uh-huh. >> rose: it always is, yes, youe gotten some small piece of information because of torture, but for the most part the best information and the large quantity of information comes from simply being able toreate some kind of environment where that person, for a variety of reasons, waed to talk. >> yes. i agree. >> rose: you know, my guessabout mcnamara spent a postwar lifetime trying to come to grips with who he was and why he had moments of great challenge, did
3:53 am
the things he did, why he made decisions, why he continued to -- or why he failed to see things that other people saw. was it ambition? was it arrogance? was it some other human quality? >> was it loyalty to the president? >> rose: yeah.i'm always puzzle- >> rose: the answer to thathelp. >> yes. he's fond of a quotation from t.s. eliot about returning to that place from where we started, knowing that place for the first time. >> rose: yes.i love that quote. >> i once talked to an
3:54 am
interrogator, and he asked me how many have you interrogated? i said, no, it's not an interrogation. it's an interview it's really different. he said, okay, have it your way, but how many people have you broken? i said i don't think i've broken anybody. i've interviewed people. i've tried to find out about them, but that's not part of the deal. i could be wrong about all of this. interviewing is properly considered a human relationship. you and me at this table talking.
3:55 am
the most powerful interviews really do not involve some kind of adversarial position. they involve some kind of communication. i'm convinced of that. could be wrong, but i think that's at e essence of the enterprise. >> rose: i do, too.wl, clearly . >> rose: spend a fair amou ofti. congratutions on "tabloid." >> thank you so much. >> rose: good to see you.good t. >> rose: errol morris.the movie" captioning sponsored by rose communications
3:56 am
captioned by media access group at wgbh r
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am